Quality of communication process

The quality of communication processes was the second broad value I identified in my draft evaluation framework. A range of communication occurred during the AdaptNRM project ranging from one-way information delivery to dialogue and deliberation among decision- makers, social and biophysical scientists regarding the application of science in regional contexts (see Table 8). I will now present the values interviewees attributed to those processes relative to the evaluation criteria proposed in Chapter 2.

Process of knowledge discovery

One measure of knowledge quality in the draft framework was comprehensiveness i.e. did the engagement process bring together a wide range of the relevant knowledge. Results from AdaptNRM have prompted me to re-consider the range of knowledge considered in an engagement exercise to be a function of the processes of facilitated engagement.

One of the first steps undertaken by the AdaptNRM project team was consultation with regional NRM groups about what topics they wanted covered which would directly influence what scientific expertise was sought e.g. botanists versus ocean current modelers. A member of the project team noted that a very consultative process of deciding upon which science to focus on evolved into a more pragmatic process of juggling the stated knowledge needs of decision-makers with the expertise and knowledge available to the project team (project team interview notes). The sources of science were therefore constrained initially by the capacity of the institutions funded to deliver the project (CSIRO in the main but also the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility – NCCARF). The process for determining

67

which scientific experts within those institutions were involved and which knowledge they accessed was not documented or widely understood among the regional decision-makers interviewed, particularly in relation to the range of knowledge potentially available beyond CSIRO and NCCARF. The lack of transparency in science selection was not raised directly as an issue by interviewees. One problem arguably arising, however, was where participants were aware of other relevant science that wasn’t included in AdaptNRM (noted by several). When it is not clear why some sources of science are excluded it may affect the legitimacy of the process.

While the project arguably started as a science delivery exercise, during the course of the project another relevant source of knowledge was ‘discovered’ or elicited by the AdaptNRM project team. That was knowledge held by decision-makers themselves. One of the biophysical scientists on the project team was reported to have said the regional participants were better placed to provide input on the application of science as that was their area of expertise (project team interview notes). Despite the fact that not many decision-makers explicitly identified their own colleagues as “experts”, their knowledge was valued, particularly when it gave practical insight into the application of science. Fifteen out of twenty-five interviewees explicitly acknowledged the value of their colleague’s knowledge without specific prompting on this topic. For example:

NRM23 "I think the most use was seeing the diversity of approaches from the different regions and chatting to people afterwards"

NRM07 “we also had the opportunity to deal with other NRMs around Australia... That’s really assisted us because other NRM regions around Australia are having similar issues and problems and dealing with the very things we are all dealing with together.”

NRM10 “more interaction that we might of had as a group of end users to talk about lessons learned and how it was working for us or how we were rolling it out and case studies of—that could’ve helped”

The value of colleague’s practical knowledge was discussed in relation to both AdaptNRM as well as other projects in the broader climate adaptation program. The value of this applied practitioner knowledge seemed to be its relevance, although such knowledge may also be credible as it is ‘tested’

Improving access to knowledge

In my draft evaluation framework, accessibility was seen as a measure of knowledge quality. As mentioned above, the case study indicates accessibility of science is a broader concept

68

than merely knowledge being retrievable and these other aspects of accessibility are a function of communication. One of the core objectives of the Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change program, of which AdaptNRM was part, was information delivery. Indeed, despite the AdaptNRM project team adopting a participatory and engagement-based approach, some interviewees viewed the project in a one-way mode of information delivery:

NRM15 “we were told there’s all these different things going on and they’re part of this overall program and it was just to look at it as a resource of information that we could then use”

One of the values of facilitated engagement processes like AdaptNRM is not only in collating relevant information in a place where decision-makers can retrieve it, but in communicating knowledge in a way that makes it easier for decision-makers to understand, consider and potentially apply. Projects like AdaptNRM can improve the accessibility of science for decision-makers by distilling and synthesizing an often overwhelming volume of information described thus by one decision-maker: “you’re sort of swimming in an ocean of information and most of the time, you’re just treading water” (NRM03).

The importance of concise targeted information summaries to these regional decision- makers may be a function of their low capacity with nineteen out of twenty-five interviewees specifically mentioning lack of time as a factor limiting their engagement with science generally or AdaptNRM specifically. Lack of time may not be unique to these decision- makers with a lack of capacity to access and synthesize science also observed among conservation practitioners (Walsh et al., 2014). Because of time-constraints and the broad range of knowledge domains regional decision-makers need to refer to, concise, targeted communication could mean the difference between a given piece of research being judged relevant or irrelevant, or simply being overlooked.

NRM02 “If it’s going to take me a while to work out if this is relevant, it probably isn’t relevant so I tend to flick it and get on to something else”

This raises an ethical issue however, linked to the idea of knowledge comprehensiveness. That is, if one function of science communication is to collate and synthesize information relevant to decision-makers, who decides which knowledge is included and how do we determine what new values, interpretations and biases are introduced?

69

Values related to dialogue and deliberation

Interviewees who were more highly engaged in AdaptNRM valued several aspects of dialogue and deliberation (Figure 4). Firstly dialogue among other decision-makers and scientists was valued as a mechanism by which they developed ideas. One decision-maker described content development in AdaptNRM thus:

NRM16 “there were several teleconferences where people were actually able to provide their feedback in a broader context. So they could listen to what people had to say and amend comments or add additional comments which they might not have thought of before but were triggered by speaking to other people or listening to other people.”

Meaning-making through dialogue is a distinct value that cannot be achieved by one-way information delivery. It requires interaction and the making and questioning of claims (Habermas, 1984). In this case it also involves engaging both with scientists with their expertise in impacts of climate change and other decision-makers with their expertise in how to apply that knowledge. Dialogue and deliberation also resulted in some interviewees changing attitudes or ways of thinking about a problem (see also individual or personal outcomes):

NRM14 "its been a really good forum to share ideas and challenge your thinking and that sort of stuff."

For some interviewees, this process of deliberation was facilitated by AdaptNRM providing the opportunity (also see 3.4.5 Resources available for engagement) to reflect on broader issues than the project-specific deliverables and project management that generally occupies their time:

NRM02: “You often find those times when you just pull away from your every day job... through these kind of meetings and opportunities can often be a really great time to reflect on bigger picture issues and things which just may not really get much attention otherwise.”

NRM17: “its given us a bit of time to actually do a bit of a stock take and look at the way that we’ve been attacking things and going ‘can we improve these’?”

In this way, engagement processes may be valuable if they allow decision makers to reflect on what the implications are of the ideas being discussed. Some also mentioned that they enjoyed the opportunity to interact (particularly face-to-face) with people thinking about the same issues.

70

Figure 4: Values associated with dialogue, deliberation and associated outcomes at individual (inside the dotted square) and institutional levels.

Dialogue and deliberation with experts may also be valuable for decision-makers if it helps them “situate” science in relation to other sources of knowledge. The mandate of regional NRM groups is to work with landholders and they report to executive boards. Both these groups were mentioned as having views that sometimes conflicted with science. This situation of conflicting opinions or knowledge may be partly a function of climate change as a contentious politicised issue in Australia at the time the project was underway. However, the need for environmental management institutions to work with landholders will be a common scenario unless institutions are also empowered to implement policies and plans. Regional decision-makers were highly aware of the need to cooperate with landholders to implement their plans:

NRM20 “if a large group of people are telling you that weeds are your key issue and you turn around and say no it’s actually water quality folks then who’s going to help you fix the water quality?”

learning new knowledge/ products relationships, professional networks make & question claims

individual capacity

develop ideas, elicit relevant knowledge institutional capacity determine the implications & application of science

dialogue space _enjoyment

build trust

71

Landholders will inevitably have practical and other knowledge which needs to be understood and related to scientific knowledge and so facilitated engagement processes like AdaptNRM can be valuable where they help decision-makers situate science in relation to other knowledge sources.

Opportunity or power to influence process and outputs

As discussed in Chapter 2, some evaluation frameworks for general public engagement include criteria related to the capacity for participants to influence policy decisions (Laird, 1993; Rowe et al., 2004). With decision-maker publics, the issue of empowerment was explored through their opportunity to influence the scope of the project or its outputs. In AdaptNRM, most interviewees had not helped set the scope of the project, but there were mixed views around the usefulness of early engagement. There was a recognition by some including a funder that in the early stages of the project and broader program, decision- makers in regional NRM groups may not have been able to articulate what type of information or knowledge they needed from scientists. A decision-maker described the roll out of the project thus:

NRM20 “They would come to us saying what do you need? And we were at the start of our process saying what can you offer? And I guess you don’t know what you don’t know so being asked a question when you’re starting a planning process like that was personally very difficult because I’d only just arrived in this organisation to do this job. So my scope and understanding of what to ask for was quite limited.”

In this instance, a process of dialogue and engagement about the type of science available and the questions it can answer seems necessary in order to meaningfully get input from (at least some) participants on the scope of knowledge to be included. Lengthy consultation is not appealing to all however, particularly decision-makers who are time-constrained and place more value on information delivery as evidenced in this observation about AdaptNRM:

NRM03 “I didn’t pay that much attention but it seemed to me like they spent too long reflecting on it rather than just thinking we’ve got six months to get something out there.”

So empowering decision-makers to determine the scope of knowledge engaged with is not straight-forward. The downside of a decision-maker not having this influence however, may be a lack of buy-in or commitment to the project due to its perceived irrelevance.

Respect for participants may be a first step to empowerment and influence. The importance of respect was evident in the value many interviewees placed on being listened to

72

by the project team. The consultative approach embedded in AdaptNRM was recognised and valued by the bulk of interviewees (although people who felt consultation was poor may not have engaged with AdaptNRM or this research) as evidenced in these observations:

NRM01 “the best thing that’s come from it is that the AdaptNRM team have basically consulted with the end practitioners the whole time”

NRM07 “I think whenever we’ve been provided the opportunity to comment or review, I’ve found the project coordinators very willing to listen and take on board suggested changes that we’ve managed. And also feeding back to us afterwards. Yeah, they’ve been very good at that.”

Being listened to may equate with respect but also a degree of empowerment when decision- maker ideas result in change. In this case, influence was important to at least some interviewees because it resulted in improving the relevance of the engagement exercise and its outputs.